On the Correspondence Between Paul Giustiniani's Vision of Eremitical Life and The Central Elements of c 603

Dear Sister, I saw an exchange between you and another hermit on a list for hermits. (I am not one but I aspire to be.) He is non-canonical and you are canonical. Near the end of the discussion he said that you and he have completely different conceptions of hermit. I wondered what the differences are between his notion of a hermit and your own.]]

Thanks for the question. I can't say very much about his idea of eremitical life because I haven't seen him post much about it. He has cited the work of Merton's friend, Dom Jean LeClercq and his fine work,  Alone With God. I believe all of his ideas of hermit life come from there since he made a comment which contrasted other forms of eremitical life with that found in Alone With God.  The conception of the hermit in this book is Paul Giustiniani's, a Monte Corona Camaldolese founder and hermit who broke away from the original Camaldolese when he was driven to reform them. His eremitism as described by LeClercq, was constituted as a 1) pure contemplative, 2) living in solitude and pure poverty or simplicity, 3) living in and with God in Christ and aiming for total union with God. One other thing which might be said to contextualize or provide a framework for all of these, and constitute a fourth element is what Paul Giustiniani  describes as 4) the "role of the hermit in the church." This is really critical because how ever we approach those first three elements above, insofar as we are Christian hermits, we must do so within the Church and on behalf of the Church. It is also here in relation to this last element, that, in reflecting on the eremitical vocation and other vocations in the church, Giustiniani perceives the importance of diversity within unity.

In other words, Giustiniani's vision opens up a strong notion of the hermit whose solitude is marked and framed by community with and within the whole church in Christ, including what we would call today, "A preferential option for the poor" and all the necessary conditions of a life of the silence of solitude in order to grow in communion with Christ to the point of union. The ecclesial framework of eremitical life was very important to Giustiniani. So are states of life which allow for differing expressions of the eremitic life. Giustiniani accepts that the religious (we would also say consecrated) state is far safer for living a good eremitical life. This is so because it allows for  Rule and legitimate superior who can exercise the ministry of authority. Generally speaking, that is my understanding of Giustiniani's view of eremitical life.

Dom Robert Hale, OSB Cam

Now, I don't know this for certain but it seems to me the authors and consultants on c 603 drew in major ways from Alone with God and the concerns and observations of Paul Giustiniani when they created this first-ever universal (canonical) way for solitary hermits to become the kind of hermits Giustiniani always desired. Canon 603, the canon by which my own eremitic life is lived sounds to me very like what Giustiniani considered essential for good hermits on their way to union with God in Christ; it includes: 1) stricter separation from the world, 2 assiduous prayer and penance, 3) the silence of solitude, 4) the evangelical councils embraced by vow or other sacred bond, all 5) lived according to the Rule the hermit writes for herself and all lived 6) under the supervision of the diocesan bishop (who exercises the ministry of authority for the hermit).  The two approaches to eremitic life seem very similar to me, so I can't understand how the person you referred to might have affirmed he and I each hold completely different conceptions of what a hermit is. If he doesn't hold Giustiniani's view of ecclesial import and the place of obedience and legitimate superiors, then he has not said that. At the same time, he does seem to hold some antipathy towards institutionalization and considers it antithetical to eremitical life -- so in that he may differ from both Giustiniani and myself depending on what is meant by "institutionalization."

This is very general and was merely meant to describe Giustiniani's view of eremitical  life and the way it largely corresponds to canon 603. Please ask for clarifications if there are things you want me to go into in more detail. I am actually pretty excited to reread Alone With God and to consider where I am in my life in comparison to what Paul Giustiniani describes and even requires, so I will post more on this comparison I think. It's a great subject and if you have more questions, it could be helpful because they would fit right in. Again, thanks for the question!

Questions on "Justifying" Inner Work

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, when you write about the inner work you have undertaken you justify it in the name of your vocation --- as though your vocation itself called for it and made it the right and necessary thing to do. I wonder if that is really true. I don't think I have read about any other hermit undertaking this kind of work after leaving the world or entering the desert! It seems entirely unique to you. Do you really think other hermits might be called to this kind of "work" or could you be justifying it in order to remain a hermit?]]

Thanks for your questions! They do push me further in writing about this work. First, I have no idea how many other hermits are acquainted with PRH; I know that Father Michael Fish, OSB Cam has done PRH and knows my director/accompanist personally for her skills in PRH, but beyond Michael's experience I don't know of other hermits who have engaged in this work. At the same time I think it is important to remember the entire history of eremitical life and the frequent references that occur throughout this history to the struggle or outright battle with demons --- most of which, I am sure, are the demons of our own hearts. As I wrote here a couple of years ago in On Battling Demons and Mediating Peace:

[[. . .believe me, when we deal with the parts of ourselves left unhealed, distorted, or broken in childhood and throughout life, the process of healing can be as fierce, demanding, and messy as stories of Desert ancestors battling all day and night long with demons then coming out of their caves torn and bloodied but exultant in the morning! The same is true of the story of Jacob wrestling with God (God's angel) and, painfully wounded though he was, refusing to let go until God blessed him. We enter the desert both to seek God and to do battle with demons; it is a naïve person indeed who does not anticipate meeting herself face to face there in all of her weakness, brokenness, and [(fortunately), her] giftedness as well! We may well know that God is profoundly involved in what may eventuate into the fight/struggle of and for our lives but it can take time, faith, and perseverance before we walk away both limping and blessed beyond measure.]] (cf Sources and Resources for Inner Work)

I am also reminded of a passage from Thomas Merton's Disputed Questions in the essay "The Renaissance Hermit"; here Merton cites Bl. Paul Giustiniani: [[It is here, in this inexpressible rending of his own poverty, that the hermit enters, like Christ, into an arena where (she) wages the combat that can never be told to anyone. This is the battle that is seen by no one except God, and whose vicissitudes are so terrible that when victory comes at last, the total poverty and emptiness of the victor are so absolute that there is no longer any place in (her) heart for pride.]]

Hermits have known throughout the history of eremitical life, I believe, of the nature and necessity of the struggle Paul Giustiniani noted here and which I have described as "inner work". Alan Jones in Soul Making,  The Desert Way of Spirituality,  refers to the healing of memories as an integral part of the desert tradition and life, and while I don't believe he appends the description, "struggling with demons," I have no doubt he would agree with the linkage made here. In other words, the work which I have described here and there during the past two years and more is work which is entirely consonant with the life of a hermit; more, it is work that the desert context makes absolutely essential. I think I could call it a sine qua non of eremitical life and not be overstating the case. It is in fact, a necessary dimension of the salvific character of the hermit life. As regards your last question, I am clear that my posts on "inner work" capture the paradox of risking a vocation because the very vocation itself makes this necessary. I have, so far as I and others can discern, not fooled myself or them in identifying solitary eremitical life as my own vocation --- an important reason to have embraced an ecclesial vocation under the direction and supervision of others!

Questions on Sunday Obligation and the Hermit Life

[[Sister, are you allowed to skip your Sunday obligation? A Catholic Hermit [link to this blog provided and omitted here] wrote that she is able to do this because it is God's will and (according to How Did Hermits Keep Their Sunday Obligation?) apparently an historical right of hermits. I don't understand how this works. Have hermits always been able to skip the Sunday obligation?]]

In general I do not skip my Sunday obligation, no,  though yes, in some circumstances I am allowed to.  If I am required to miss Mass on Sunday for some good reason (usually illness but occasionally the requirements of the silence of solitude and stricter separation) I ordinarily participate some other time during the week if that is possible. It is possible for a hermit who is publicly professed and who has assumed the additional canonical obligations of the eremitical life in the consecrated state to miss Sunday Mass because extended solitude and the call to eremitical solitude itself necessitates this; but remember that in such a case the hermit will ordinarily participate in a Liturgy of the Word with Communion in her own hermitage. This does not equate to participating in Mass but it does have a distinctly communal sense to it in the same way Communion brought by EEMs has the sense of continuing a Eucharistic celebration.

Moreover, because this is a matter of legitimate rights and obligations, she will only do so if she is allowed according to her Rule and with the general permission of her Bishop (given mainly in his official declaration of approval of her Rule).  It will, in such a case, not be enough to simply list "solitude" as a value in one's Rule without specifying how this is worked out or at least indicating it will be effectively and sensitively combined with other important values (like a hermit's necessary Sacramental life!). Further, in specific instances, especially of  very prolonged solitude, she will discuss the matter with her director occasionally to be sure her praxis here is prudent and that her solitary ecclesial vocation is not suffering from isolation from the faith community (this also happens at the involvement end of things when she will meet with her director or delegate to be sure her involvement is not detracting from her vocation to the silence of solitude).

In general, however, I have to say that even when I am living a more extended and intense physical solitude which involves seeing no one and not attending daily Mass at all, I will generally get to Sunday Mass at least once or twice a month --- not least because of the Eucharistic theology which sustains my life in the hermitage. While the obligations I assumed in profession and consecration may allow or even oblige me to live my physical solitude with an intensity and integrity which sometimes means missing Mass it does not EVER allow me to completely turn my back on my baptismal obligation or pretend the last 10 centuries never occurred.

The idea that missing Sunday Mass is an historical right of hermits is not really accurate. While regular attendance at the Sunday liturgy has been required or expected since the early days of the Church, this does not translate directly into what we know today as a Sunday obligation. Further, the blog article which is referred to (How Did Hermits Keep Their Sunday Obligation? ) makes the following erroneous point: [[This is why no ecclesiastical writer or hagiographer ever seems to think it is an issue that the saints and hermits are not able to attend Mass; they understand that their choice of life makes it impossible to fulfill the Sunday obligation and that in these circumstances, that decision is justified in the eyes of God and the Church.]] In point of fact St Peter Damian (11-12C) and Paul Giustiniani (16C) both wrote about the importance of attending Mass and receiving Communion regularly (though they were not addressing the idea of Sunday obligation in their day). Giustiniani in particular addressed the issue: [[The second kind of hermits are those who, after probation in the cenobitic life, after pronouncing the three principal vows and being professed under an approved Rule [note well the structure and formation required here], leave the monastery and withdraw to live all alone in solitude. . .Such a life. . . is more perfect than the cenobitic but also much more perilous. It permits no companionship but requires that each be self-sufficient. Therefore it is no longer permitted in our day. The Church now orders us to hear Mass often, to make our confession, and to receive Communion. None of those can be done alone.]] Dom Jean LeClercq, Alone With God, "Forms of Hermit Life" (an alternative translation is provided below***)

*** [[ Indeed this solitary way of life was considered more perfect (even if less safe) than that of the cenobites at the time when no law of  Holy Church forbade living a life in complete solitude. But at the present time ecclesiastical laws oblige all the Christian faithful . . .  to confess their sins often, to receive Holy Communion, and to celebrate or attend Mass frequently. . .Now since all these things are hardly possible in this [entirely solitary] kind of life, it would seem to be wholly prohibited. So it is held to be less safe (or rather completely illicit) for a Christian to attempt it, or more exactly, to persist in it.]] Paul Giustiniani, Rule of the Hermit Life.  "Three Types of Hermits"

In today's Church the Sunday obligation obliges every person unless there is a truly good reason or some exception made by a legitimate superior. The obligation is a priority in an authentic faith life and requires Catholics make it a priority unless they have a really good reason or the aforementioned exception is made. One cannot argue (as it seems to me the USC blogger argued) that missing Mass is fine so long as it was not the primarily intended end. (It might not be a sin in such a case but it is not really okay.) Neither then does this mean a lay hermit (meaning a hermit without PUBLIC vows or canonical initiation into the consecrated state with its commensurate rights and obligations) can simply decide on her own, "Oh, traditionally hermits never went to Mass because they were called to solitude, so neither do I need to attend Mass! or "I have chosen solitude first so missing Mass (the secondary consequence) is no problem," or even "I just don't "fit in" so God is calling me to something else and I am dispensed." A lay hermit (e.g., the person whose blog you first referred to) is bound by her baptismal obligations. These are legitimate obligations (binding in law) and without public profession no other canonical obligations have been assumed nor do they potentially modify these fundamental obligations. Once again the importance of standing in law becomes very important.

Every eremitical writer who has considered the relation of the hermit to the Church and the danger of the independent solitary hermit is clear that too often this way results in illusion and delusion. It results in isolation more often than it does in genuine solitude and it can lead a person away from active and integral participation in the Church. When Paul Giustiniani writes about the three kinds of hermits he says: [[To the first type of hermit belongs those who take no vow of poverty, chastity, or obedience, [here he means public vows under a legitimate superior] do not have an approved rule, and are not subject to any teaching or discipline. . . They do not follow any regular discipline [referring again to a rule and superior], but only their own feelings, and they are not directed by the teaching officer of any superior, but by their own opinion. And so, by these very things, they make it clearly understood they still keep faith with the world. . . .For Saint Benedict, who calls these [hermits] sarabaites if they reside in a definite place, or gyrovagues if instead they move often from one place to another, plainly defines them as having the most disgraceful and miserable style of life. These . . . are called acephalous, that is, headless. The sacred canons of the Church do not sanction this kind of life. Rather, they censure it.]]  In any case if a lay hermit (even one with private vows!) wishes to remain a good Catholic she will keep those laws of the Church she embraced in accepting Baptism.


In many of the posts I have put up here I have written about the ecclesial nature of the diocesan eremitical vocation, the covenantal nature of genuine solitude, the distinction between isolation and solitude, the importance of canonical standing in order to create stable ecclesial relationships which allow one to live this vocation with integrity and not delude oneself, and finally, the importance of friendships and regular participation in a parish community. In somewhat different ways, the same is true of the lay eremitical life. The facile conclusion that God wills a solitary hermit who claims on their own the title "Catholic Hermit" to simply forego reception of the Sacraments, isolate herself entirely from a local faith community, live without adequate spiritual direction nor under the authority of any legitimate superior simply underscores the importance of all these points; it also underscores the danger Saints like Peter Damian and eremitical reformers like Paul Giustiniani (who profoundly loved and understood the call to eremitical solitude) wrote about. In Paul Giustiniani's time we have seen he concluded that solitary hermit life was no longer licit or viable; the significant solution and model he proposed was a laura of hermits. Today we also have canon 603 which, while governing solitary eremitical life, does so with mainly the same safeguards Paul Giustiniani outlined. The hermit's relationships with diocese and parish ordinarily serve the place of a laura, at least in the sense of providing an intimate ecclesial context for one's solitude and in reminding us that the hermit's life is never one of isolation from the community of faith. If what this lay hermit wrote does not make sense to you then that is understandable; it is in conflict with the Church's own understanding of the way the solitary eremitical vocation must (and must NOT) be lived today and it is in conflict with classic writers on the eremitical life since at least the 11th century.

While I have cited the Camaldolese Benedictine constitutions on requirements for recluses it is important to cite what Paul Giustiniani says about those living reclusive lives. After commenting on the importance of the laura (a colony of hermits) for providing the advantages and security of community and allowing solitude he says of the recluse, [[but he will never be released from the rule and constitutions of the hermits or from the authority of and obedience of the superior. So too he will never lack fraternal assistance on those occasions when, for the observance of ecclesiastical norms, the ministry of another is required.]] Meanwhile, in his "Instruments of the Eremitic Life" Giustiniani lists celebrating Mass with spiritual joy or hearing it with devotion (#20), receiving Holy Communion with great reverence (#28), maintaining appropriate observance of common life (#33). For C 603 hermits these prudent requirements translate into relationships with a parish community and active participation there --- even if that is largely limited to Mass attendance only. For lay hermits who are in no way relieved of their ordinary Catholic obligations by accepting and being charged with other legitimate ones, this is even more the case.

Solitude (that is, eremitical solitude which describes solitary communion with God lived for the sake of others) is recognized in canon law as a very high value but this is only true when it is understood to truly exist in the heart of the Church. In my own life the "silence of solitude" (which is a goal and gift to the Church as well as an environment) might well require that I miss Sunday Mass for a period of time but there are sufficient structures (Rule, superiors, canons), relationships (superiors, faith community, director, pastor, etc), prayer (including the LOH and liturgy of the Word with Communion), and oversight (delegate, Bishop, director) to assure this does not slip into isolation or become willful, personally eccentric, or simply illusory (or delusional). Maintaining one's balance between physical solitude and participation in the Church's concrete faith life allows some flexibility and creates some tensions but one must be able to say, no matter what, that one is living a genuinely ecclesial faith life. For the solitary (c 603) hermit or for the lay solitary, a regular Sacramental life celebrated with one's brothers and sisters in Christ is undoubtedly part of doing so.

(See also, Hermits and Eucharistic Spirituality for a more general discussion of part of the way hermits resolve the issue of competing legitimate obligations in their life. This piece deals with developing a truly Eucharistic spirituality even when one cannot always get to Mass.)

Followup on the Paradox of Canon 603

[[Sister Laurel, are you saying in your post on the paradox of canon 603 [Paradox of Canon 603] that lay or non-canonical hermits should  have the same kinds of structure built into their own lives as canonical hermits? I don't mean they should exist in law (de jure) but that they should have people who fill roles similar to those your Bishop and delegate fill for you?]]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I don't know anyone, especially those trying to live contemplative lives in the depths of both their own heart and God's own heart who can do this without the checks and balances provided by relationships like those with a spiritual director, pastor, friends, and church more generally. It becomes even more important for those proposing to go off on their own in relative isolation from others. As Dom Jean LeClercq (20C.) notes in Chapter III of Alone With God, [[There must be a vocation. To recognize it, we must know what it is not. The illusion of false vocations is by no means unreal.]] Nor are these less unreal in our own century!

Even with authentic and carefully discerned and formed vocations one piece of wisdom the Church has shown for centuries in her approach to actual recluses is that they are only allowed within certain established Orders or Congregations --- and those with a healthy and long eremitical history. The vocation is encouraged in these congregations, as are other forms of greater solitude which do not rise to the level of actual reclusion, but those allowed to become recluses are "vetted" for spiritual as well as psychological health and maturity. The actual call to reclusion is mutually discerned with the leadership of these congregations according to guidelines established in their own proper law. In the Camadolese constitutions part of the section on reclusion reads:

By the unity of faith and charity, the recluse remains in community with his fellow monks and with all: "The Church is at the same time one in all and all in each; simple in plurality by the unity of faith, multiple by the bond of charity and the variety of gifts; because from the One come all" (St Peter Damian's letter #28 sometimes called "Dominus Vobiscum", section 11) . . .The prior is to prudently ascertain whether the monk who requests this permission has the necessary human, psychological, and spiritual maturity. 

The experience of reclusion shall be granted at first for determined, brief periods of time; however, the reclusion can be suspended when the recluse or the prior finds there are legitimate motives for doing so. The prior shall show fatherly concern for the recluse by assisting him with frequent personal visits and guaranteeing him the necessary quiet. For his part, the recluse must know he remains always united to the father of the community by obedience. Constitutions and Declarations of the Camaldolese Congregation of the Order of Saint Benedict pp 25-26

In the history of eremitical life Paul Giustiniani (Camaldolese) once determined that because the Church had changed her own praxis regarding reception of the Sacraments and participation in ecclesial life solitary eremitical life could no longer be considered legitimate. Dom Jean LeClercq cites Giustiniani: [[The second kind of hermits are those who, after probation in the cenobitic life, after pronouncing the three principal vows and being professed under an approved Rule [note well the structure and formation required here], leave the monastery and withdraw to live all alone in solitude. . .Such a life. . . is more perfect than the cenobitic but also much more perilous. It permits no companionship but requires that each be self-suficient. Therefore it is no longer permitted in our day. The Church now orders us to hear Mass often, to make our confession, and to receive Communion. None of those can be done alone.]] LeClercq, Alone With God, "Forms of Hermit Life"

Instead Giustiniani called for the establishment of lauras of hermits, colonies of hermits whose individual hermitages were linked by paths (hence the name lauras) whereby the dangers of solitary eremitical life could be avoided and the benefits of community (including Rule, superiors, vows, liturgy, etc) could be shared. Centuries before, the Camaldolese founder, St Romuald, traveled around the countryside where, according to the sound of some accounts, he found "hermits" behind every bush or in every cave mostly doing their own thing without benefit of Rule, vows, or superior (mentor, director, etc). He was appalled by what he found, not only because of laxness or its similarly unhealthy counterpart in penitential rigor, but because of the individualism and eccentricity which was so very prevalent in such instances and many others. One of the primary efforts Romuald made was to bring hermits together or at the very least to establish them under the Rule of Benedict according to the example of his own life --- something which will have far-reaching consequences in the regulation of their lives.

You see there are two distinct dangers to the eremitical life prevalent throughout this history and the whole history of eremitism itself. The first is that eremitical life will be swallowed up in community life. This is largely what happened as cenobitism replaced the life of the desert Fathers and Mothers. Later cenobitism came to distrust the impulse to eremitical solitude. The second is that eremitical life will merely become an instance of individual pique, whim, distortion or delusion that separates itself off from the vision and life of the church in any sense at all, etc.

We see this in hermits who reject the necessary ecclesial dimension of this vocation and buy into a "do-your-own-thing" kind of "spirituality" --- whether they do so as progressives, conservatives, or eccentrics more generally. SS. Romuald, Peter Damian, Paul Giustiniani all dealt with both of these dangers and so has the church throughout her history in statutes established more and less locally by dioceses throughout the centuries to clarify and protect the vision of eremitical life she perceives as a gift from the Holy Spirit.. In the contemporary Western Church canon 603 is the contemporary solution to this problem codified in universal law --- at least insofar as people determine to live, whether de jure or de facto according to the church's own vision of what eremitical life means and entails.

It seems to me that those who do not seek to become canonical hermits, to whatever extent they desire to live eremitical life within the Church as true daughters and sons of the Church, will structure their lives according to the single norm for eremitical life that exists in universal law. While they may not have legitimate superiors they will have spiritual directors and pastors to help them journey safely and profoundly into the depth of their own hearts and the heart of God. They will have a few trusted friends who will confront, console, and challenge them with the truth they see in their lives. They will participate in and make integral to their lives the Church's own Sacramental and liturgical life. They will have some sort of Rule as well as an understanding of and commitment to the elements of canon 603 that pertains to all eremitical life in the Church.

Especially they will avoid the individualism so decried by the Camaldolese founders and reformers mentioned here and honor the fact that an authentic vocation to solitude depends on community even as it is cautious not to be swallowed up in it. Similarly they will acknowledge and honor the flip side of that coin, namely, that community requires solitude and the Church needs those living a solitary life. Hermits cannot be healthy or authentic without the Church nor will the Church be healthy without hermits. This too is an implication of the passage cited from St Peter Damian's letter, Dominus Vobiscum above. Paul Giustiniani says the same thing; it is cited in LeClercg's essay on "The Hermit's Vocation: Role in the Church" in Alone With God.